If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

We have a theory on what is causing the planet to warm so rapidly and lots of evidence to support that theory. Let me know when your side publishes the theory that increasing CO2 has no effect on climate and then we can sit around and wait for when it gains widespread support in the scientific community... which will be never.

Try the site www.scotese.com and then try to sell your used cars elsewhere. Particularly this page...

It's not how old you are, it's how you got here.It's been a long road and not all of it was paved.A man is but a product of his thoughts. What he thinks, he becomes. Gandhi

Originally Posted by Carol

When I judge someone's integrity one key thing I look at is - How does s/he treat people s/he doesn't agree with or does not like?
I can respect someone who I do not agree with, but I have NO respect for someone who puts others down in a public forum. That is the hallmark of someone who has no integrity, and cannot be trusted.

It means less than nothing. If a majority is wrong, it's still wrong. Science is about proof, and the proofs of AGW theory are lacking.

Originally Posted by The Night Owl

What matters is how the consensus is arrived at.

Yes, and in this case, the consensus was arrived at by ideologues who liked being able to blame the weather on capitalism. They used their positions to punish any deviation from their artificial consensus, excluded them from publication, grants and tenured positions in the institutions that they controlled, ostracized them and threatened them, and then announced that they had achieved "consensus" the wat that the Soviets used to announce that they were "democratic."

Originally Posted by The Night Owl

We have a theory on what is causing the planet to warm so rapidly and lots of evidence to support that theory. Let me know when your side publishes the theory that increasing CO2 has no effect on climate and then we can sit around and wait for when it gains widespread support in the scientific community... which will be never.

You have a theory that presumes that the planet is warming, but it isn't. The "evidence" is simply models which fail to replicate the known temperatures for past readings, which demonstrates their inaccuracy. The argument that our side has to publish something to debunk a theory about a non-existent phenomena is a classic straw man. However, since you insist, there have been articles published that demonstrate that CO2 increases follow warming periods, that it is an effect, rather than a cause. As for the rest of your assertions, they are demonstrably false. First, the argument that human activity causes global warming is false.

96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist ó levels rise and fall without mankind's help.http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm

The consensus that you keep claiming is false.

There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate.
Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public ... as H L Mencken said "the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" ... the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm

You keep fighting for a solution that satisfies your desire to control economies, but for which there is no problem. Peddle it elsewhere.

The consensus in the time of Galileo was that the world was flat, he went against the grain and risked his life to state that the world was round and was excommunicated for it.
He wasn't the only one who believed this but when the political and religious climate was against them the others chose to go with the flow.
History repeats itself.

The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.